What exactly is objectionable about Ms Clinton?

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Here, read this. It was made a big deal because that is one of the things he lied about. Had he not lied it wouldn't have been a big deal, but he lied about the relationship to help cover up the whitewater scandal.

He lied to evade responsibility for his sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Whitewater was an entirely separate issue; it was the beginning of the investigation that ended in impeachment, but Mr. Starr wasn't able to find enough evidence to recommend any charges but the Jones case perjury.

Please note that I do not dispute the fact of Mr. Clinton's perjury, or his basic underlying dishonesty. I merely note my belief that most Republicans used the outrage over his sexual misconduct to stoke the fires of impeachment.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Here, read this. It was made a big deal because that is one of the things he lied about. Had he not lied it wouldn't have been a big deal, but he lied about the relationship to help cover up the whitewater scandal.

He lied to evade responsibility for his sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Whitewater was an entirely separate issue; it was the beginning of the investigation that ended in impeachment, but Mr. Starr wasn't able to find enough evidence to recommend any charges but the Jones case perjury.

Please note that I do not dispute the fact of Mr. Clinton's perjury, or his basic underlying dishonesty. I merely note my belief that most Republicans used the outrage over his sexual misconduct to stoke the fires of impeachment.

Well after Clinton doing to them what he did to Monica they were definately "frustrated"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Jhnnn, however, is your typical ATPN moron troll. He wouldn't know democracy if it bit him on the ass. Democracy is not an ideology. It is neither left nor right. It has nothing to do with wealth distribution or taxes. It is a system of political representation and decision-making. No more. No less. If the people decide upon an "unfair" system of taxation, that is still democracy, because it was the people that decided. Likewise the other way around.

Thanks for the ad hom, vic- It's the last resort of the argumentatively challenged, the language of intellectual cowardice and emotional insecurity.

Modern democracies, other than in the infantile conceptualization of the rightwing and some so called libertarians, have certain goals wrt the whole idea of public welfare and equality of opportunity, something that the whole idea of unlimited wealth accumulation by a very few seeks to deny. Democracy *is* an ideology, and it depends on certain conditions being met- "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite"- conditions not fulfilled by economic serfdom and media control by the few.

What do you think that the French and American revolutions were about, other than the succession of the ideology of democracy over that of monarchy, the divine right of kings?

That's basically where the far right wants to lead us, economically- minus the titles, of course- that'd be too obvious.

It's not an ad hom when it's true and directly addressed to your own argument (or lack thereof).
You have no clue what you're talking about and are just trolling moronic ideological bullsh!t and partisan hackery in a desperate and vain attempt to keep people from noticing that you know absolutely nothing about basic polisci or civics.
I swear, you can't make it through a single sentence without spouting some vitriolic remark about "right wing" this and "the evil rich" that. These distractions might work if you weren't a broken record using them.
And oh, BTW, the French Revolution failed and resulted in tyranny, empire, and war. Why was that, do you suppose?

You are not entirely incorrect though, you're just deeply confused by your own partisan hackery. While not actually defined by it, democracy does require a balance of powers in order to be successful. This balance should consist of economic (as you focus on), political, and military equilibrium spread throughout the diversity of the people, balanced by rule of law to protect basic human rights and civil liberties. But you don't actually believe in that, but instead push for total control of a single political agenda and power, regardless of the potential abuses and with a strong focus of hatred of those who don't share your political ideology and agenda, which is why you always stress the economic aspect over all the others. Wouldn't want anyone to notice that your agenda would be unbalanced politically and not result in a sustainable democracy, now would we?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha


what exactly is wrong with her.

She keeps bad company

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Siddhartha


what exactly is wrong with her.

She keeps bad company

I like how your link blames Clinton for the Iraq death toll from 1990- "the total death toll in Iraq from bombing and sanctions is put at between 1.2 and 1.7 million people. It is now of the five greatest genocides of the 20th century, with the number of casualties rivalling that of Pol Pot?s Cambodia."
Oh no , James McDougal died. Ron Brown died in a plane crash. The only obvious conclusion to make is that Bill Clinton must have killed them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Personal attack isn't personal attack, vic? At least not when it's in defense of your own hallucinogenic libertarian pablum.

Corporate entities are a fact of life, basically a tool of wealth. They limit liability and accountability of the stockholders, also obscure true ownership. OTOH, they are an inescapable manifestation of capitalism, which, controlled and directed, has provided the greatest yield for the most people in the creation of the first world middle class.

That partnership has never been willingly entered into by those at the very top- it's been forced upon them politically in the form of the New Deal and other Third Way intrusions of democracy into the realm of economics, usually in the wake of some cataclysm of capitalism like the great depression. The alternatives of Fascism and Communism are even less desirable, symptoms of either total victory or total defeat for the financial elite.

Capitalism may be the engine of democracy, that's undeniable, but it doesn't know how to steer, other than to compete in ways that ultimately lead to monopoly and oligopoly, which benefit only the investor class.

Which is the thrust of current political efforts from the Right, accelerated by the discredit of extreme voices on the other end of the spectrum and by their financing of so-called libertarian thinktanks, as well.

What passes for Libertarianism in this country is a thinly disguised veil for big money, and a lure for the simple minded who've seen too many John Wayne movies and actually believed what Ayn Rand had to say... people who don't realize that the frontier closed over 100 years ago, and who have an idealized conceptualization of what closed it...

And I'm not the one pushing for total control, at all. That distinction, and the origin of what has become class warfare, belongs with the other side, those who seek to abandon the partnership of America for other partners who'll work for less, providing a better profit margin and accelerated concentration of wealth and power. Even as they move to create more concentrated wealth and power on an international scale, they finance and nurture voices and movements seeking to limit the power of the people on a national level. Like it or not, "Smaller Govt" is no match for Big Business, which is just the way they like it... and why they promote the simplistic deception that is modern day Libertarianism...

As you've pointed out, the problem with the Clintons is that they've been entirely too UN-willing to force greater compromise at the top, which is what'll be required to restore some sort of political and economic balance. They're too easy.

Edit- somehow missed the Un- part of unwilling- mea culpa

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Capitalism may be the engine of democracy, that's undeniable, but it doesn't know how to steer, other than to compete in ways that ultimately lead to monopoly and oligopoly, which benefit only the investor class.

Capitalism in and of itself does not lend itself to monopoly or oligopoly.

As you've pointed out, the problem with the Clintons is that they've been entirely too UN-willing to force greater compromise at the top, which is what'll be required to restore some sort of political and economic balance. They're too easy.

No, the problem with the Clintons goes far deeper. They're corrupt at the core.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Pabster. Fisrt she's a Commie, and now she's a willing tool of the financial elite, corrupt to the core...

Make a consistent argument, will ya? Otherwise you're just revealing an irrational hatred, using anything you can come up with as justification...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, Pabster. Fisrt she's a Commie, and now she's a willing tool of the financial elite, corrupt to the core...

Make a consistent argument, will ya? Otherwise you're just revealing an irrational hatred, using anything you can come up with as justification...

Let's be realistic here. Bill and Hillary are two of the best friends China has ever had. There's absolutely no question that the Clintons are corrupt at the core.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, Pabster. Fisrt she's a Commie, and now she's a willing tool of the financial elite, corrupt to the core...

Make a consistent argument, will ya? Otherwise you're just revealing an irrational hatred, using anything you can come up with as justification...

Let's be realistic here. Bill and Hillary are two of the best friends China has ever had. There's absolutely no question that the Clintons are corrupt at the core.

What does China have to do with your claim that Hillary is a communist? China dumped communism in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre and is solidly fascist. Every president since Nixon has sucked up to China.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ironwing
What does China have to do with your claim that Hillary is a communist? China dumped communism in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre and is solidly fascist. Every president since Nixon has sucked up to China.

You're right, every President has sucked up. None tighter to the tit than Bill Clinton.

In a time where the trade defecit and product quality control are becoming big issues, does it make sense to elect a shill for China?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ironwing
What does China have to do with your claim that Hillary is a communist? China dumped communism in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre and is solidly fascist. Every president since Nixon has sucked up to China.

You're right, every President has sucked up. None tighter to the tit than Bill Clinton.

In a time where the trade defecit and product quality control are becoming big issues, does it make sense to elect a shill for China?

Getting back to your claim that Hillary is a communist...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Getting back to your claim that Hillary is a communist...

...And, with tacit approval of my previous comments (as you choose not to address them), let me provide some qualification for Hillary's Communist roots.

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer: A Season Of Love And Leftists

Hillary Clinton's Left Hook

This isn't really too difficult. A passing glance over Hillary's past paints her quite clearly as a Communist.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ironwing
Getting back to your claim that Hillary is a communist...

...And, with tacit approval of my previous comments (as you choose not to address them), let me provide some qualification for Hillary's Communist roots.

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer: A Season Of Love And Leftists

Hillary Clinton's Left Hook

This isn't really too difficult. A passing glance over Hillary's past paints her quite clearly as a Communist.

Ok, now it's guilt by association. :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Aimster
she's an arrogant bitch

& us men hate arrogant bitches.

You would be arrogant too if you were as superior to her as she is to you.

I think there is a huge difference in being very confident, and being arrogant.

IMO, Moonbeam is a very confident person. And IMO, Hillary is a very arrogant person.

 

[Drakkon]

?They (Republicans) believe in letting everyone fend for him or herself. They believe in what the president calls an ownership society, which is really you?re on-your-own. It?s the yo-yo economy; some go up and some go down and the strings are pulled by other people. I don?t think that?s how America works best.? - Sen Clinton Aut 7 2007
Its quotes lik these that make people think she has a communist agenda. She seems to be saying that having your own stuff is making it so the rich can pull your strings. Its Marxism at its core.

 

[Jhhnn]

What you point out wrt China, Pabster, is basically what I said at the top of the page- that the Clintons have been unwilling to force enough compromise at the top- Who do you think has led and financed the industrialization of China- the tooth fairy? or American Capitalists?

And, uhh, which party has shown itself to be the unabashed whores to business over the last 7 years? Put out the "For Sale" signs on the lawns of the Capitol and the Whitehouse? Let lobbyists actually write the bills they passed, w/o regard for the middle guy and the little guy?

 

[Jhhnn]

"Ownership Society" Drakkan? You made me laugh.

Fewer Americans own anything of lasting value than at any time in the recent past- they don't "own" their car, they lease it. They don't "own" their house, they remortgaged it for 125% of appraised value at the peak of a speculative wave, and all they "own" is the debt attached to it. They don't "own" their furniture or their electronic gadgets, or even the clothes on their backs- they're paying 21% interest on the creditcard debt used to acquire that stuff, and it's wearing out faster than they can pay it off...

Being owned is more like it...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Personal attack isn't personal attack, vic? At least not when it's in defense of your own hallucinogenic libertarian pablum.

Corporate entities are a fact of life, basically a tool of wealth. They limit liability and accountability of the stockholders, also obscure true ownership. OTOH, they are an inescapable manifestation of capitalism, which, controlled and directed, has provided the greatest yield for the most people in the creation of the first world middle class.

That partnership has never been willingly entered into by those at the very top- it's been forced upon them politically in the form of the New Deal and other Third Way intrusions of democracy into the realm of economics, usually in the wake of some cataclysm of capitalism like the great depression. The alternatives of Fascism and Communism are even less desirable, symptoms of either total victory or total defeat for the financial elite.

Capitalism may be the engine of democracy, that's undeniable, but it doesn't know how to steer, other than to compete in ways that ultimately lead to monopoly and oligopoly, which benefit only the investor class.

Which is the thrust of current political efforts from the Right, accelerated by the discredit of extreme voices on the other end of the spectrum and by their financing of so-called libertarian thinktanks, as well.

What passes for Libertarianism in this country is a thinly disguised veil for big money, and a lure for the simple minded who've seen too many John Wayne movies and actually believed what Ayn Rand had to say... people who don't realize that the frontier closed over 100 years ago, and who have an idealized conceptualization of what closed it...

And I'm not the one pushing for total control, at all. That distinction, and the origin of what has become class warfare, belongs with the other side, those who seek to abandon the partnership of America for other partners who'll work for less, providing a better profit margin and accelerated concentration of wealth and power. Even as they move to create more concentrated wealth and power on an international scale, they finance and nurture voices and movements seeking to limit the power of the people on a national level. Like it or not, "Smaller Govt" is no match for Big Business, which is just the way they like it... and why they promote the simplistic deception that is modern day Libertarianism...

As you've pointed out, the problem with the Clintons is that they've been entirely too UN-willing to force greater compromise at the top, which is what'll be required to restore some sort of political and economic balance. They're too easy.

Edit- somehow missed the Un- part of unwilling- mea culpa

None of this is relevant to our earlier argument and discussion, you've just backpedaled away from defending your own flawed arguments regarding the nature of democracies into making inaccurate ad hom and red herring attacks at what you (incorrectly) perceive to be my own political ideology. Typical childish uber-left bullsh!t rhetoric and talking points.
Worse still was how you fell back into your usual broken record of Chicken Little-isms and fear-mongering in your usual attempt to harass anyone and everyone into unwavering faith of your political religion. And then you (ignorantly and ironically) claim you're not pushing for "total control," while going back completely to economic causes as the sole balance necessary for democracies while continuing to push for political unbalance.

So like I said, it isn't ad hom when it's true and directly relevant to the discussion at hand. Ad Hominem would be if I claimed you were an idiot and therefore you were wrong. Quite the opposite, I long ago proved you wrong based on the facts, and THEN called you an idiot (which I do only because you are so arrogantly pompous about your brainwashing).

And you are completely wrong about the Clintons. Ridiculously wrong. They are consummate compromisers and well-renowned for it. That is one reason why I have always been a huge fan of Bill, and I voted for him both times.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Ownership Society" Drakkan? You made me laugh.

Fewer Americans own anything of lasting value than at any time in the recent past- they don't "own" their car, they lease it. They don't "own" their house, they remortgaged it for 125% of appraised value at the peak of a speculative wave, and all they "own" is the debt attached to it. They don't "own" their furniture or their electronic gadgets, or even the clothes on their backs- they're paying 21% interest on the creditcard debt used to acquire that stuff, and it's wearing out faster than they can pay it off...

Being owned is more like it...

So because some of us abuse ownership, none of us should be allowed to have it? Wow... how profound... :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Vic
So because some of us abuse ownership, none of us should be allowed to have it? Wow... how profound... :roll:

Yep. We're gonna take some things away from you...for the common good.

 

[trenchfoot]

ms. clinton is a corporate barracuda all dressed up as a liberal guppy.

she may support societal issues that lean on liberal underpinnings up front, but she also represents alot of big business interests that are quietly controlling a very profitable slice of her agenda.

just ask her for an honest answer on what her thoughts are about NAFTA. i'm certain she and bill are of the same mind on this issue.

 

[gururu2]

there is no escaping the fact that Hilary will share many of Bill's ideals, i mean ffs, they have been married for 30 years. and it is idiotic to neglect the white house experience that hilary has due to this, deserved or undeserved. that being said, bill left office after 2 terms with an extremely high approval rating. this was in spite of republican efforts to make his private life a huge political issue (completely based on semantics). approval ratings are not random, fickle thoughts of America for their leaders, they truly reflect the popular opinion. if America thinks their leaders are doing a good job, what else do you want? Now hilary has been subject to all of the decision making and management during the clinton administration, and clearly knows how to do the job to meet America's approval. whether she will actually do it or not is a personal judgment, but the fact remains: she not only knows how it is done, she has the man behind it as her closest confidant. no other candidate can claim that. and if for some reason you thought clinton was a bad president, you do not share the popular liberal consensus and should vote republican or green anyway.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Ownership Society" Drakkan? You made me laugh.

Fewer Americans own anything of lasting value than at any time in the recent past- they don't "own" their car, they lease it. They don't "own" their house, they remortgaged it for 125% of appraised value at the peak of a speculative wave, and all they "own" is the debt attached to it. They don't "own" their furniture or their electronic gadgets, or even the clothes on their backs- they're paying 21% interest on the creditcard debt used to acquire that stuff, and it's wearing out faster than they can pay it off...

Being owned is more like it...

Speak for yourself I guess. How incredibly naive. Most of us choose to increase our net worth. And will NEVER allow the government to take it away from us.

Communism didn't work.

 

[Vic]

Meh. My bigger complaint right now is that, among all his other nonsense, Jhnnn doesn't even know what an ad hominem is, and accuses me of resorting to it at the exact same time that he himself is doing so. Very frustrating to have to deal with such poor reasoning skills.

http://www.nizkor.org/features...lacies/ad-hominem.html

It is not an Ad Hominem to call someone an insult if the insult is not the basis of your argument. For example, it is not ad hom to say that someone is wrong AND they're an idiot. It is, however, an Ad Hominem to label someone as ANYTHING if that label is irrelevant to the argument and the basis for why they are supposed to be wrong. In other words, it is an ad hom to say that someone is wrong BECAUSE they're an idiot. Make sense?

See the example used in the link above, as it almost perfectly illustrates the style of fallacious ad hom argument that Jhnnn used against me in his last post.